Recently the offices have been in discussion in the Reformed churches. There appears to be less certainty today concerning the number and the task of the offices. About thirty years ago, Prof. J. Kamphuis could write: “The New Testament does know of the office of the minister, elder and deacon.”¹ Today this would not be said as easily anymore in the Netherlands. And among us as well questions concerning what an elder may or may not do have come up. These questions concern in particular the words of the blessing, the raised hands with the blessing, and – to a lesser extent – the administration of the sacraments.

Must we think in terms of two or three offices? Or should we consider other models? In other words, is the familiar triad of minister, elder and deacon to be revised? Or can we continue to work with it?

My thesis is that we should retain the “three-office” view. To argue this point I would like to look at some Scripture passages concerning the offices, then consider the stand of the Reformed confessions, and finally make some conclusions.

Recent Changes⤒🔗

That a change has occurred in the view of the office of the minister is noticeable in the revision of the Form for the Ordination of Ministers of the Word.² After quoting Ephesians 4:11-12, the old Form for the Ordination of Ministers of the Word makes a direct reference to the pastoral office with the words:

Here we see among other things that the pastoral office is an institution of Jesus Christ.³

In the thinking of the authors of this Form, there was a direct line from the New Testament to the pastoral office of the day. The new Form has a much more detailed circumscription at this point. It says:

In the early Christian Church this task was fulfilled by the apostles. They, in turn, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, appointed elders in every church. According to 1 Timothy 5:17 there were elders who ruled the congregation. Some of them were also called to labour in preaching and teaching. The latter are now called ministers of the Word.⁴ [emphasis added]

One notices that the new Form sees a much wider gap between Paul's references to the office in Ephesians 4 and the office today. Today's minister of the Word cannot be directly found in the New Testament. His office has grown out of an historical development. And the name of the minister (v.d.m., as he was called) is essentially a later invention. In fact, says the Form, we give the minister his name.

How did the new approach to the office come into the Form we adopted? Essentially we took our revisions from the changes made in the Netherlands. At the time, perhaps no one sensed that there was a new view of the office inherent in this new Form. However that may be, the result is that we have embedded in our Form a new understanding concerning the office of the minister of the Word, viz. that this office is not directly traceable to the New Testament.

It is not my intention to criticize or even to critically trace the development inherent in the revision of the Form. It was clear to all that the old Form was rather cryptic in its treatment of the ministerial office. Some scriptural data essential to the ministerial office were passed over. Thus, no one can dispute that revision was needed. However, we should prevent misunderstandings from arising with respect to the office of the minister. For while the old Form clearly presupposes a three-office view, the new Form reflects more ambiguity on this point. It posits that the third office, the office of the minister, has no direct foundation in the New Testament, but is only a logical extension of a development already present in the New Testament. And the formulation could easily be misunderstood to say that this office represents only a man-made addition to the organizational pattern of the church described in the New Testament. Indeed, the revision of the Form raises the question just exactly what part of the minister's office is based directly on Scripture, and what part of it represents later historical developments.

The element of ambiguity in the new Form is easily traced. It states that some leaders were set apart to preach and teach, according to 1 Timothy 5:17, and then it asserts: “To them was entrusted the ministry of reconciliation.” Yet we know that this was specifically entrusted to the apostles. In the new Form there is an implicit jump from the apostles to the ministers of today. If anything, the new Form then leads to a two-office view, with the office of the minister of the Word introduced rather abruptly, and with a certain degree of silence as to the precise fixation or circumscription of this office. This raises the question whether in fact we can base the office of the minister of the Word as we know it on the New Testament.

Some Evidence←⤒🔗

If we turn to the New Testament, we discover that there are several reasons for thinking in terms of a three-office rather than a two-office view. Let us consider these in turn.

Pastors and Teachers←↰⤒🔗

First, we turn to the text which was used by the old Form of Ordination, and is still quoted in the New Form, Ephesians 4:11-12. The fact that two functions are connected by the apostle (pastors and teachers) indicates that these offices were closely connected. In fact, we may think here of one office. But which one? In the past, the terms pastors and teachers were connected most frequently with the office of the minister. Today, they are seen more commonly as elders. Nevertheless, there is a clear delineation of two functions in the text! As S. Greijdanus said:

Because of the one article, these are referred to as one group. The first word is broader than the second … The meaning (of the first word, JDJ) is expressed in the usage: to be shepherds, or: to shepherd. Teaching or instructing, being a teacher, is a specific manifestation or expression of this; that is, it is the exercise of the office of pastor in a specific sense.⁵

The broader task of all elders is to rule and govern the flock, Acts 20:28.

But this government is closely connected with teaching. The congregation is led and directed by the proclamation of the Word! Therefore we may see the teachers as pastors who teach, i.e. ministers of the Word.⁶

In this passage the exact lines of the permanent offices are not clear. That is why the passage was used in the Reformed tradition to defend the office of the doctor as a fourth office in the church. This was Calvin's explanation of the text. While he may have read too much into the text as far as the offices were concerned, he was correct in isolating two functions in the passage.

1 Timothy 5:17←↰⤒🔗

This passage is similar to the preceding one in that it speaks about one group or office, but also alludes to two distinct functions. So W. Hendriksen says that “already in Paul's day a distinction began to be visible between those whom we today call “ministers” and those whom we still call elders.”⁷ There is a wider body of elders who have the general oversight, but from them there is also a narrower group who have a more specific task to perform, i.e. teaching and instruction. And as in the preceding passage, so here we cannot avoid a reference to two distinct functions.

Calvin takes this passage as referring to two distinct offices, the second being the pastors or ministers of the Word. This explanation has been increasingly questioned in recent years. But, as in the case of the preceding text so here, we must at least credit Calvin for pointing to two distinct functions. Hence while the full contours of a distinct office have not emerged, the lines of a third office are clearly visible.

Ministers←↰⤒🔗

Next we may turn to the New Testament use of the term minister. The verb “to minister” has first a very general usage in the New Testament, pointing to any kind of service. For example, when the Lord Jesus says that He came not to be served but to serve, (Mark 10:45) he uses the term “serve” in a very broad sense. The “serving at tables” referred to in Acts 6:2 is also a general usage of the term. And in Romans 16:1-2, Phoebe is called a “deaconess,” a term which describes a more general service in the church. But the term minister is most often used in the specific sense of those who labour in the Word and doctrine. The term is applied to Christ Himself (Galatians 2:17, Hebrews 8:2), to Paul, (Romans 15:16, Ephesians 3:7, Colossians 1:23, 25), and to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:6), as well as other fellow-workers, (Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7, 2 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Timothy 1:2). In these references we notice that the term is specifically applied to the apostles, and those who continued the apostolic task in its specific character as ministry of the Word. Timothy and Tychicus were preachers rather than elders. Thus the term minister (Gk: diakonos) is then used primarily for one who laboured in the Word.⁸

Of particular significance is the usage of the term minister in Hebrews. For here it is connected to the service of the priests in the Old Testament, cf. Hebrews 7:13, 8:2. The point of the letter here is that the ministry of Christ is far superior to the ministry of the Levitical priesthood, since it represents a heavenly ministry. Just as in the Old Testament, the priest ministered at an earthly altar, so Christ stands as minister before the heavenly altar of His sacrifice, and administers the blessings of this heavenly sacrifice to His people.

Although there is no explicit reference to the sacraments, one can discern sacramental imagery throughout these chapters. The altar has been replaced by the table of the Lord! The earthly sacrifice is now fulfilled in the heavenly sacrifice.⁹ Christ is the essential minister (diakonos) of the heavenly blessings for the church. The ministers on earth are only representatives and agents of His work. So the early church soon tied the administration of the Word with the sacraments, and connected these to the task of the minister of Christ. Indeed, the application of the term minister to Christ in this context leads one to conclude that especially those who are in other places called ministers (Paul, Timothy, Tychicus) were those specifically charged with this ministry, i.e. the ministry of the Word and sacraments.¹⁰

The Laying on of Hands←↰⤒🔗

A third consideration pointing to a distinct third office concerns the laying on of hands as referred to in 1 Timothy 5:22. Besides the evangelists of Acts 6, Timothy appears to be the only recipient of this ceremony as referred to in Scripture, 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6. It is clearly a ceremony of ordination. Although elders participated in it, we do not read of elders receiving it. And in 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul gives the injunction not to be hasty in the laying on of hands, indicating that some testing and training is essential for those who are to be considered eligible for this ceremony. Were these brothers to whom Paul refers then not elders? Possibly they were, since this injunction occurs in the context of a series of injunctions dealing with elders. However, possibly we find here more specific focus on the second function mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:17, namely, those who labour in the word and doctrine. It stands to reason that because of their special task, they more than others need to be carefully tested.

All this does not clearly depict a distinct office, but certainly points in the direction of a special ceremony for those who were set apart for the work of the church in teaching and preaching. The task of teaching and preaching was so comprehensive that men were needed who were able to give themselves wholly to this work. So crucial was this function in the church that Timothy is admonished to be very careful concerning who is admitted to this task. This task also appears to be the most closely associated with that which the apostles and evangelists did in the early stages of the life of the church. Here, however, the functions appear to be more localized, i.e. attached to specific places.

Stewards←↰⤒🔗

Next we may consider the office of the steward. Paul, who at one point calls himself a minister, also calls himself “a steward of the mysteries of God,” 1 Corinthians 4:1. Now these mysteries refer in particular to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and the rich treasures of wisdom and knowledge as found in Him. It would be incorrect to see an exclusive reference to the sacraments in this passage. Yet, one may ask: are these sacraments to be excluded here?

In my view one should not exclude the reference to the sacraments in this and other passages which use this term, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Ephesians 1:9; 3:4, 9: Colossians 1:26, 27; 4-3, 1 Timothy 3:9, 16.

• For this term always points to the fullness of the revelation of God which includes the knowledge and wisdom of Christ in all its aspects.

• Secondly, when Paul uses this term, he deliberately distinguishes the gospel from the sacred rites and practices of the Greek mystery cults of the day.

• Third, the term sacramentum is a translation of the Greek, musterion, and it was very early in the history of the church that the term mysteria (mysteries) came to be used for the sacraments.¹¹

• Fourth, one may also read into the image of a steward an administering or dispensing action. The steward was the person who managed in and administered the affairs of the house. This image applies most suitably to the administration of the Word and the sacraments together.

If we recall that Paul draws the closest connection between the apostolic office and the office of diakonos, minister, then we have reason to see here also a reference to a distinct office charged with labouring in the Word and the sacraments. And if this appears to be too far-reaching of a conclusion, we may at least assert that the ministry of the Word and the sacraments are consistently closely tied together in the New Testament.¹²

Angels←↰⤒🔗

A final consideration centers on the words of Revelation 1:20, which refers to angels of churches. Commentators are for the most part divided concerning the interpretation of the term angels in this and the following verses (2:1, 8 and so on). However, the term certainly lends itself to thinking in terms of one or more figures who had the responsibility for the welfare of the congregation, and who were charged with bringing the Word of God to the congregations. An angel is a messenger, and here one thinks of the message of Christ to the church. The picture of Christ walking among the lampstands with the messengers in His hands indicates that those who bring His message are so directed by Him that they are to bring only His Word. Thus we may think of a special group which has a special calling to administer the Word of Christ to the flock.¹³

Summary←⤒🔗

These then are six New Testament pointers or allusions to the specific office of the minister of the Word. Even if one would say that the specific profile of today's minister of the Word cannot be read directly in the New Testament, the lines from the N.T. are strong enough to indicate that the contours of this office are already present there. In other words, the name “minister of the Word” as it applies to those who labour particularly in the Word and doctrine today is not a man-made label given apart from the data of the New Testament; rather, it is an appellation based on data present in Scripture itself.

It also seems clear that although we do not have exact delineations of our offices in the New Testament, there is insufficient evidence at the present stage of study in the New Testament to change the practices we have grown familiar with in the Reformed churches over the years.

The Confessions←⤒🔗

One may wonder whether the question concerning the number and functions of offices is a moot question with little or no significance for practical life of the churches. After all, does it make any difference which label is applied to which office? Is there anything wrong in seeing a minister as an elder, or in seeing an elder as qualified to teach? Are not these indifferent matters in the church?

An examination of the Reformed confessions will immediately make dear that in the time of the Reformation this was not considered to be an indifferent matter. The 'three-office' view is firmly embedded not only in our confessions, but in most of the confessions of the Reformation. In this article we will consider some of these confessions, focussing in particular on the task of the minister of the Word, and then draw some conclusions with respect to the practice of the office of the ministry and that of the elders today.

The French Confession, 1559←↰⤒🔗

This confession forms the blueprint for the Belgic Confession of 1561. In Art. 29 it confesses three offices: “We believe that there should be pastors, elders and deacons.”¹⁴

In art. 30 it says: We believe that all true pastors, wherever they may be, have the same authority and equal power under one head, one only sovereign and universal bishop Jesus Christ; and consequently no church shall claim any authority or dominion over another.

In Art. 31 this confession says: … all pastors, elders and deacons should have evidence of their being called to office.

Noteworthy in this confession – which also forms a sort of blueprint for later credal statements on this point – is that the office of the minister of the Word is identified as: pastor, (French: des pasteurs). The First Helvetic Confession of 1536 speaks of pastors and teachers, with a direct link to Ephesians 4:11-12.¹⁵ Hence we see early in the Reformation the name pastors being given to the preachers or ministers of the Word.

The Scottish Confession, 1560←↰⤒🔗

This confession makes a reference to the ministers of the Word when dealing with the sacraments.

In Art. 22, it says:

That Sacramentis be richtlie ministrat, we judge twa things requisite: The ane, that they be ministrat be lauchful Ministers, whome we affirme to be only they that are appoynted to the preaching of the Word, into quhais mouthes God has put sum Sermon of exhortation, they being men lauchfullie chosen thereto be sum Kirk.¹⁶

The ministers are also to be active in the task of guarding the table of the Lord, as stated in Art. 23:

And therefore it is, that in our Kirk our Ministers tak publick & particular examination, of the Knawledge and conversation of sik as are to be admitted to the Table of the Lord Jesus.¹⁷

Remarkably, this confession makes no reference to the other offices. Indeed, it shows – in the line of Calvin – a certain priority on the office of the minister of the Word. The pastors were considered to be the leaders of the church, and the elders were specifically charged with the government and discipline of the flock with the ministers.

The Belgic Confession, 1561←↰⤒🔗

Our own confession follows the pattern set out in the previous confessions. It also uses the name pastors specifically for the ministers. In Art. 30 we read:

We believe that this true church must be governed by the spiritual polity which the Lord has taught us in His Word – namely, that there must be Ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God, and to administer the sacraments; also elders and deacons who together with the pastors form the council of the church …¹⁸

These three offices are mentioned again in Art. 31, where, following the French confession, equality is enjoined upon all the ministers. With this confession, as in the previous ones, one notices the predominance of Ephesians 4:11-12 as the guiding passage of Scripture in the credal formulations concerning the offices.

Our confession also makes clear that the Ministers are charged with the task of administering the sacraments. This was not regarded as an indifferent matter.

We read in Art. 35:

Therefore, the Ministers, on their part, administer the Sacrament, and that which is visible, but our Lord gives that which is signified by the Sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace…¹⁹

While the matter of the administration is not presented as a disputed point, the confession is clear that the task of administering the sacraments is reserved for the ministers of the Word. The confession reflects the close relationship between the Word and the sacraments as taught in Scripture. After all, without the Word the sacraments have no meaning! They only find meaning coupled with the Word.

The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563←↰⤒🔗

The catechism also makes a clear statement on the different tasks of the officers in the church. The ministers of the Word are those charged with the dispensing of the sacraments.

Lord's Day 28, Q. and A. 75 says in the second part, … and further, that with his crucified body and shed blood he himself feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, as certainly as I receive from the hand of the minister, and taste with my mouth, the bread and the cup of the Lord, which are given me as certain tokens of the body and blood of Christ.²⁰

This statement clearly asserts the role of the minister as the one charged with the administration of the sacraments.

The Second Helvetic Confession, 1562←↰⤒🔗

This confession was written by Henrich Bullinger, the successor of Zwingli in Zurich. He had a good working relationship with Calvin, and maintained good relations with Geneva. Calvin's influence is evident in this confession. The office of the ministers is treated in Art. 18. The term minister is used both in a general sense, and in the more specific sense of the one charged with the task of preaching of the Word.²¹ In the more general sense, the term is applied to all who had or have an office in the church, i.e. from the apostles and other extraordinary officers to the more permanent offices of bishops, elders, pastors and teachers. Remarkably, this confession does not mention the office of the deacon.

With regard to the ministers in the more specific sense, the confession makes use of the texts that we have considered in the previous article. Drawing on Hebrews 9:10-11, the confession says that Christ did not appoint priests in the church, “but ministers, who may teach and administer the sacraments.” Upon asserting that the ministers must be wholly dedicated in their life and work to the Lord, the confession says: “He (i.e. Paul, JDJ), adds further that the ministers of the church are 'stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God' (1 Corinthians 4:1). Now the mysteries of God, Paul in many places, and especially in Ephesians 3:4, does call 'the Gospel of Christ.' And the sacraments of Christ are also called mysteries by the ancient writers. Therefore for this purpose are the ministers called – namely, to preach the Gospel of Christ unto the faithful, and to administer the sacraments.”²²

The Westminster Standards, 1647←↰⤒🔗

The churches of the Presbyterian tradition also maintain three offices, and limit the administration of the sacraments to the office of the minister. In Art. 27/4 of the Westminster Confession we read:

There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of our Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.²³

The Larger Catechism, speaking of the sacraments says that “both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and none other, and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.”²⁴ This is clear indication that the Presbyterian tradition, too, does not see the matter of the administration of the sacraments as indifferent.

Other Confessions←↰⤒🔗

The pattern sketched above can be found in many more confessions of the Reformation. The close connection between the Word and the sacraments, and the restriction of the administration of the sacraments to the ministers is also brought out in Art. 7 of the Augsburg Confession, in Art. 5 of the English Confession of Jewell, 1562, and in the confession of Wirtemburg, 1552.²⁵ A similar approach is found in Art. 23 of the Thirty-Nine Articles, 1571.²⁶ The same theme carries over in Articles 70, 71, and 74 of the Irish Articles of 1615.²⁷

Another interesting confession with regard to the number of the offices is the Hungarian Confession of 1562. This confession was originally written by Theodore Beza, who wrote it as an apology of his faith to his aging father. Many of Beza's opponents maligned him to his father, labelling him as a heretic and godless man.²⁸ Despite this limited purpose in composition, the confession was soon published in many languages, and became widely known. In 1562, the Synod of Tarszal in Hungary adopted this confession with some changes. The changes center primarily on the offices and the government of the church, but we will limit ourselves to a look at the offices in this confession.

In Articles 25 and 26 of his confession, Beza defends Calvin's view of Ephesians 4:11-12, namely that this points to two distinct offices, pastors and doctors. The office of the Doctors is more restricted than that of the pastors. The office of the Doctor was to preach the word of God in a simple way, that the true sense be uncovered, and especially to establish the catechumens. The pastors had a broader office, and were concerned in their sermons with the application of the doctrine of the Word to the church. In prayers, exhortations, rebukes and consolations they were to guard the church night and day, for to them God committed the congregation to pastor it with the Word of life.²⁹ So Beza saw the pastors as ministers, in the specific sense of the word, and doctors as a more specialized teaching office.

However, when the Hungarians took over this confession, they identified the Doctors with ministers, thus giving them the more restricted task of teaching the congregations and training the catechumens. The pastors were seen as a broader category, most likely a broader form of the office of the ministry. This at least indicates that some churches were not entirely comfortable with the approach of Calvin and Beza to Ephesians 4:11-12. It also indicates that among these churches, even though in terms of rank and essence the offices of pastor and teacher were identical, there was a difference of function implicit in the terms “pastors and teachers.”

The Confessions: A Three – Office View←↰⤒🔗

In all these confessions we find a common theme: the church recognizes a plurality of terms used for offices in the Scriptures, but distinguished between three offices or functions as instituted by Christ: ministers who taught and preached, elders who ruled and deacons to whom was entrusted the material care and well-being of the flock.³⁰ Only the Second Helvetic Confession lacks the reference to the deacons. Furthermore, the confessions clearly restrict the administration of the sacraments to the ministers of the Word.

The Present Situation←⤒🔗

One must also admit that, from the point of view of exegesis, one can make a case for a two-office view.³¹ However, the confessional stand outlined above should at least make one open to a word of caution. A new exegesis should not directly lead to a host of practical changes in the life of the church. Indeed, as I have tried to show, there are also substantial arguments in favour of retaining our present practice and division of labour of the offices. Even if any one reason may not carry sufficient weight in itself to defend the office of the minister as we know it today, the sum of the arguments, as well as the confessional reflection on this matter in the Reformed tradition, should remind us that changes should not be made lightly.

←⤒🔗

The Blessing?←⤒🔗

The reader will understand that I have looked at the offices particularly from the point of view of the distinction between the offices, concentrating specifically on the administration of the sacraments as a duty restricted to the ministers. I believe the Reformed confession here reflects the line of Scripture, and that changes in this area – for example – by permitting elders to administer the sacraments on a regular basis – would not be a step forward. However, the matter of the blessing is perhaps a more disputed point. Why has this always been restricted to the ministers?

In my view, the letter to the Hebrews forms the primary guiding Scripture behind this custom in the Reformed churches. In this letter the Old Testament ministry of the priests is compared to the richer ministry of Christ in the New Testament. Now it was precisely the priests who were the primary ministers of blessing under the old covenant. As we read in Numbers 6:22ff., they blessed the gathered assembly in the name of God. It was then only understandable that the ministers of Christ in the new covenant became the ambassadors of his blessing.³² He is the minister of a better covenant, and as eternal high priest, His hands remain raised in blessing over His people, Luke 24:50. This ever present blessing is reflected in what His ministers do as the assembly is gathered together.

The line of argumentation of the Second Helvetic Confession gives us a good example of the Reformed approach to this matter. Article 18 of this Confession says: “The ministry then and the priesthood are things far different one from the other. For the priesthood, as we have said even now, is common to all Christians; no so the ministry.”³³ The confession then speaks of a general priesthood of all believers, but also of a ministry which specifically portrays the priestly intercession of Christ in the gathered congregation. And this the confession restricts to the ministers. As I see it, this reflects the line of Scripture, which uses diakonos specifically for those who labour in the Word and doctrine.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

Even these brief comments above make clear that the matter of the blessing deserves more attention and discussion. It is also understandable that churches have raised the question concerning the exact formulation of the words, i.e. whether to change the words of Scripture or not. While these discussions are to be commended, my aim here has been to reiterate the distinction between the offices, to show how firmly this distinction is rooted in the Reformed tradition, and how this tradition, too, has strong Scriptural roots. About one hundred years ago H. Bavinck concluded his treatment of the offices in his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek with the words:

But this much may safely be said that the Reformed most purely understood the thought of Scripture and most powerfully acknowledged the rights of the congregation by restoring the office of the elder and the deacon next to that of the minister of the Word.³⁴

Without discounting the need for continued study and reflection on the Scriptural guidelines of the offices, we can say that these words are still true today.